21 Canada. Generally, courts recognize the rights of parents to determine the best medical care for their children. At times, courts have even ruled that a mature minor should be accorded respect when it comes to making medical decisions. That was true of April Cadoreth. At the age of 14, April was admitted to a hospital with severe internal bleeding. A few months earlier, she had completed an Advance Medical Directive card with written instructions that blood transfusions should not be administered to her even in the event of an emergency. The attending physician chose to ignore April’s clearly expressed wishes and sought a court order to give her blood. She was forcibly transfused with three units of packed red blood cells. April later likened the experience to rape.
22 April and her parents turned to the courts for justice. After two years, the case came before the Supreme Court of Canada. Though April technically lost her constitutional challenge, the Court awarded her legal costs and ruled in favor of her and other mature minors who seek to exercise their right to decide for themselves their own medical treatment. The Court stated: “In the context of medical treatment, young people under 16 should be permitted to attempt to demonstrate that their views about a particular medical treatment decision reflect a sufficient degree of independence of thought and maturity.”
23 This case is significant in that the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional rights of mature minors. Before this ruling, a Canadian court could authorize medical treatment on a child under 16 as long as the court felt that the treatment was in the best interests of the child. But after this ruling, a court cannot authorize any treatment against the will of young people under the age of 16 without first offering them the chance to prove that they are mature enough to make their own decisions.
This girl made into a book of theirs so it seems there are no repercussions except for perhaps victimizing a minor who didn;t want it,but that would be on the parents or kid.
It seems that Canada didn't like it's own past ruling.
They could literally knock the minor out and give them the transfusion so why would anyone be in trouble exactly?
I can look up information on their site again since so many people are afraid to go there...
Why do you feel the need to give at least tacit defense for all these horrible things JWs do?
1. They aren't that horrible. Most of them either aren;'t a big deal or there's two sides to the story. I have no reason to listen only to the side that is whining is all. IF there is evidence of something sucky on both sides I have never defended it, but pretending that JW's are horrible because they keep to their standards is a stupid opinion to have.
2. This is a good example for non JW's, The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's. What's the issue?
3. Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand, but can't even be bothered to research. It's like me calling you a bonehead just because you disagree with me. I would have to present way more evidence than this post to verify you're said bonehead.
4. Isapop asked the question and I answered. Was it rhetorical? Hint: that question is rhetorical.
They could literally knock the minor out and give them the transfusion so why would anyone be in trouble exactly?
I can look up information on their site again since so many people are afraid to go there...
Why do you feel the need to give at least tacit defense for all these horrible things JWs do?
You can post links to actual articles about children who have died because of this evil cult and the next time the topic is discussed he will deny that children have died because of this evil cult. He's an extremely stupid and dishonest person.
A JW who consents to a blood transfusion would face consequences from the elders in their church.
I'm wondering if a court order overriding their initial refusal frees them from such consequences.
(On the old board Tas, a JW elder, could have offered an answer. But he's not here, so I guess this will hang out there unanswered.)
The mother should be charged with attempted murder. As an elder, Tas should long ago have been imprisoned for life as an accomplice to multiple cases of murder and attempted murder of children.
Why do you feel the need to give at least tacit defense for all these horrible things JWs do?
1. They aren't that horrible. Most of them either aren;'t a big deal or there's two sides to the story. I have no reason to listen only to the side that is whining is all. IF there is evidence of something sucky on both sides I have never defended it, but pretending that JW's are horrible because they keep to their standards is a stupid opinion to have.
2. This is a good example for non JW's, The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's. What's the issue?
3. Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand, but can't even be bothered to research. It's like me calling you a bonehead just because you disagree with me. I would have to present way more evidence than this post to verify you're said bonehead.
4. Isapop asked the question and I answered. Was it rhetorical? Hint: that question is rhetorical.
1. "They aren't that horrible".
So you tacitly admit they are at least a little horrible? I never said the JWs themselves are horrible BTW, I've met many, they're very nice, polite people. That doesn't change the fact that they believe in horrible, often dangerous ideas.
2. "The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's"
The fact that they deny medical science and their members just go along with be a red flag about the misinformation and brainwashing they spread, and yet you'll still argue to death there's no brainwashing in that cult and they're perfectly rational people.
3. "Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand, but can't even be bothered to research."
That's the same argument a neo-nazi sympathiser would use.
Last Edit: Sept 24, 2017 16:42:15 GMT by lowtacks86
1. They aren't that horrible. Most of them either aren;'t a big deal or there's two sides to the story. I have no reason to listen only to the side that is whining is all. IF there is evidence of something sucky on both sides I have never defended it, but pretending that JW's are horrible because they keep to their standards is a stupid opinion to have.
2. This is a good example for non JW's, The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's. What's the issue?
3. Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand, but can't even be bothered to research. It's like me calling you a bonehead just because you disagree with me. I would have to present way more evidence than this post to verify you're said bonehead.
4. Isapop asked the question and I answered. Was it rhetorical? Hint: that question is rhetorical.
1. "They aren't that horrible".
So you tacitly admit they are at least a little horrible?
2. "The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's"
The fact that they deny medical science and their members just go along with be a red flag about the misinformation and brainwashing they spread, and yet you'll still argue to death there's no brainwashing in that cult.
3. "Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand"
That's the same argument a neo-nazi sympathiser would use.
1. I'm not one of them, so obviously that means I don;t agree with all their stuff. Playing a semantics game is boring, so I will say I have never had an issue with JW's being horrible. I was stating that the things that get people bent out of shape aren't even a big deal for the ones that get bent out a shape.
For example, a person has willingly decided not to accept a blood transfusion and for some reason, choice has become an abomination that no one is for. This is especially odd considering not even a a few weeks ago, people were championing the right to kill oneself.
2. JW's are very pro-medicine. I haven;t met ine yet that wants to die from lack of healthcare.
3. That's the same argument anyone who wants to argue about something can use since it's literally an explanation, but if you wish to be that narrow minded as to include everyone who debates as being akin to Neo-Nazis. I can live with that false equivalency.
I'm glad you left off the 4th point because I am outta time
So you tacitly admit they are at least a little horrible?
2. "The girl got the blood transfusions she didn;t want and didn't get the boot from JW's"
The fact that they deny medical science and their members just go along with be a red flag about the misinformation and brainwashing they spread, and yet you'll still argue to death there's no brainwashing in that cult.
3. "Somebody's gotta do it or else everyone will just whine about something that they not only don't understand"
That's the same argument a neo-nazi sympathiser would use.
1. I'm not one of them, so obviously that means I don;t agree with all their stuff. Playing a semantics game is boring, so I will say I have never had an issue with JW's being horrible. I was stating that the things that get people bent out of shape aren't even a big deal for the ones that get bent out a shape.
For example, a person has willingly decided not to accept a blood transfusion and for some reason, choice has become an abomination that no one is for. This is especially odd considering not even a a few weeks ago, people were championing the right to kill oneself.
2. JW's are very pro-medicine. I haven;t met ine yet that wants to die from lack of healthcare.
3. That's the same argument anyone who wants to argue about something can use since it's literally an explanation, but if you wish to be that narrow minded as to include everyone who debates as being akin to Neo-Nazis. I can live with that false equivalency.
I'm glad you left off the 4th point because I am outta time
Off to church. Can't wait to see what pops up!
"I'm not one of them"
Then it makes even less sense for you to defend them, particularly since they consider other Christian sects (including yours) to be false religions.
"Playing a semantics game is boring,"
That's not semantics, that's what you basically said. Calling something "semantic" doesn't make it so.
"JW's are very pro-medicine."
They deny blood transfusions and often times college education, so that's clearly not the case. Do you believe flat earthers are pro-geography?
"I can live with that false equivalency."
How is it a false equivalency? I'm not saying JWs are as bad as neo-nazis if that's what you're infering, I'm saying your argument is the same one they use ("well you just don't understand our position"). You can use that for literally any ideaology, it's a piss poor argument by itself.
They could literally knock the minor out and give them the transfusion so why would anyone be in trouble exactly?
I can look up information on their site again since so many people are afraid to go there...
The teenager in question is not being kept under restraint where doctors can just knock her out. The court order does not leave the JW parent with literally no choice. Here (and in cases with similar circumstances) the parent is faced with the difficult choice of whether to defy a court order by not making the child available for treatment. Such defiance could carry legal consequences.
Does the Watchtower really expect its members to take things that far if it comes to it? Maybe they do. The WT says, "Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the laws of the land when these do not conflict with God’s laws."
1. I'm not one of them, so obviously that means I don;t agree with all their stuff. Playing a semantics game is boring, so I will say I have never had an issue with JW's being horrible. I was stating that the things that get people bent out of shape aren't even a big deal for the ones that get bent out a shape.
For example, a person has willingly decided not to accept a blood transfusion and for some reason, choice has become an abomination that no one is for. This is especially odd considering not even a a few weeks ago, people were championing the right to kill oneself.
2. JW's are very pro-medicine. I haven;t met ine yet that wants to die from lack of healthcare.
3. That's the same argument anyone who wants to argue about something can use since it's literally an explanation, but if you wish to be that narrow minded as to include everyone who debates as being akin to Neo-Nazis. I can live with that false equivalency.
I'm glad you left off the 4th point because I am outta time
Off to church. Can't wait to see what pops up!
"I'm not one of them"
Then it makes even less sense for you to defend them, particularly since they consider other Christian sects (including yours) to be false religions.
"Playing a semantics game is boring,"
That's not semantics, that's what you basically said. Calling something "semantic" doesn't make it so.
"JW's are very pro-medicine."
They deny blood transfusions and often times college education, so that's clearly not the case. Do you believe flat earthers are pro-geography?
"I can live with that false equivalency."
How is it a false equivalency? I'm not saying JWs are as bad as neo-nazis if that's what you're infering, I'm saying your argument is the same one they use ("well you just don't understand our position"). You can use that for literally any ideaology, it's a piss poor argument by itself.
Flat Earthers wouldn't be "anti-geography", as they have very strong beliefs ABOUT geography. That's just a slur. People who think universities are corrupt aren't "anti-education". They just think differently about it than you. So too with health. Many people spend a lot of money and time dieting and exercising. Others run to the doctor for pills. Big Pharma is always right, only if your god wears a white lab coat. You're not a missionary are you?
If you want to argue your case, you should have picked an analogy at the opposite extreme. In America, children have been forced to submit to chemotherapy. Most people can't afford that even if they want it. Where's the line? Couldn't the medical industry demand that we all undergo circumcision? Can the NRA make you buy a gun?
If you want to help Jehovas Whitness children, persuade them of your virtue, lead by example. But when doctors are putting pregnant mothers on anti-depressants (recent headline), the larger problem is too much medicine rather than too little.
Why do you feel the need to give at least tacit defense for all these horrible things JWs do?
You can post links to actual articles about children who have died because of this evil cult and the next time the topic is discussed he will deny that children have died because of this evil cult. He's an extremely stupid and dishonest person.
I thought that's what you were going to do.
There's gotta be some kind of site out there cataloguing all the milions of deaths that have occurred.
Why there is an article about this kind of stuff everyday isn't there?
In any event, that is not what the topic was about, so I easily addressed the topic and now can move on to more important matters.
A JW who consents to a blood transfusion would face consequences from the elders in their church.
I'm wondering if a court order overriding their initial refusal frees them from such consequences.
(On the old board Tas, a JW elder, could have offered an answer. But he's not here, so I guess this will hang out there unanswered.)
The mother should be charged with attempted murder. As an elder, Tas should long ago have been imprisoned for life as an accomplice to multiple cases of murder and attempted murder of children.
1. I'm not one of them, so obviously that means I don;t agree with all their stuff. Playing a semantics game is boring, so I will say I have never had an issue with JW's being horrible. I was stating that the things that get people bent out of shape aren't even a big deal for the ones that get bent out a shape.
For example, a person has willingly decided not to accept a blood transfusion and for some reason, choice has become an abomination that no one is for. This is especially odd considering not even a a few weeks ago, people were championing the right to kill oneself.
2. JW's are very pro-medicine. I haven;t met ine yet that wants to die from lack of healthcare.
3. That's the same argument anyone who wants to argue about something can use since it's literally an explanation, but if you wish to be that narrow minded as to include everyone who debates as being akin to Neo-Nazis. I can live with that false equivalency.
I'm glad you left off the 4th point because I am outta time
Off to church. Can't wait to see what pops up!
"I'm not one of them"
Then it makes even less sense for you to defend them, particularly since they consider other Christian sects (including yours) to be false religions.
"Playing a semantics game is boring,"
That's not semantics, that's what you basically said. Calling something "semantic" doesn't make it so.
"JW's are very pro-medicine."
They deny blood transfusions and often times college education, so that's clearly not the case. Do you believe flat earthers are pro-geography?
"I can live with that false equivalency."
How is it a false equivalency? I'm not saying JWs are as bad as neo-nazis if that's what you're infering, I'm saying your argument is the same one they use ("well you just don't understand our position"). You can use that for literally any ideaology, it's a piss poor argument by itself.
Then it makes even less sense for you to defend them, particularly since they consider other Christian sects (including yours) to be false religions.
By answering a very simple question, I in no way was attempting to convince people here to become JW's. I don;t care what you think about them and assume that any irrational hatred will continue.
So what am I doing?
1. Answering the question that was easy to find. I do this because, at this point in time, I know more about JW's than anyone else on this board. I've been around them literally my entire life, so they aren't just a topic to discuss in obscurity and there's no reason for me to switch exaggerations about them for reality.
Isapop might as well sent me a message since he knew I would likely respond.
2. I'm defending their religious rights and the girl's were clearly violated. I do this with nearly every religion out there that isn't hurting anyone (Medical choice is not nor never has been a bad thing) so there's no reason JW's would be different.
It's all well and good to think a kid is too dumb to make a choice about themselves, but then that should apply for a lot of things that people routinely defend.
They deny blood transfusions and often times college education, so that's clearly not the case. Do you believe flat earthers are pro-geography?
So in order to want medicine you have to go to college?
However, you are incorrect, many JW's go to college although many devote their life to their ministry too.
If not for JW's, medicine would still largely be relying on transfusions rather than other options that are available. I have no intention of getting a transfusion either if there's a better option out there.
There's a reason you don't see many stories about this anymore and it ain't because JW's don't go to the doctor.
I'm saying your argument is the same one they use ("well you just don't understand our position"). You can use that for literally any ideaology, it's a piss poor argument by itself.
I'm saying that if someone is arguing at all, it's the same as a Neo-nazi based on your ridiculous equivalency of the two.
You would think I was doing more than simply answering a question that is easy to find.
No, you didn't answer my question at all. All you did was point out that, under Canadian law, a judge must take into account the wishes of the minor if she seems mature.
My question was not about Canadian law, but rather about whether the Watchtower would expect parents to take possibly illegal measures to avoid a transfusion even if it means violating a lawful court order.
I doubt very much you know the answer to that (unless you ask a JW elder). I don't expect you to know. Just don't claim to have answered my question when you didn't address it.
Then it makes even less sense for you to defend them, particularly since they consider other Christian sects (including yours) to be false religions.
"Playing a semantics game is boring,"
That's not semantics, that's what you basically said. Calling something "semantic" doesn't make it so.
"JW's are very pro-medicine."
They deny blood transfusions and often times college education, so that's clearly not the case. Do you believe flat earthers are pro-geography?
"I can live with that false equivalency."
How is it a false equivalency? I'm not saying JWs are as bad as neo-nazis if that's what you're infering, I'm saying your argument is the same one they use ("well you just don't understand our position"). You can use that for literally any ideaology, it's a piss poor argument by itself.
Flat Earthers wouldn't be "anti-geography", as they have very strong beliefs ABOUT geography. That's just a slur. People who think universities are corrupt aren't "anti-education". They just think differently about it than you. So too with health. Many people spend a lot of money and time dieting and exercising. Others run to the doctor for pills. Big Pharma is always right, only if your god wears a white lab coat. You're not a missionary are you?
If you want to argue your case, you should have picked an analogy at the opposite extreme. In America, children have been forced to submit to chemotherapy. Most people can't afford that even if they want it. Where's the line? Couldn't the medical industry demand that we all undergo circumcision? Can the NRA make you buy a gun?
If you want to help Jehovas Whitness children, persuade them of your virtue, lead by example. But when doctors are putting pregnant mothers on anti-depressants (recent headline), the larger problem is too much medicine rather than too little.
"They just think differently about it than you."
Yeah and people who claim to have seen leprechauns also think differently than me. What's your point? Do you fancy them to be "independent thinkers"? You place too much value on holding non-mainstream views, that in itself really isn't that useful is it?
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2017 12:33:42 GMT by lowtacks86
The teenager in question is not being kept under restraint where doctors can just knock her out. The court order does not leave the JW parent with literally no choice.
Obviously, I know that she is not under restraint. I'm saying they could do anything they wanted to ensure the girl had the transfusion.
JW's, by and large are not lawbreakers. They were following the law when they chose not to have blood transfusions and the law changed their mind about what they were allowed to do.
Are you saying their choice is to break the law, have their daughter infused with someone else's blood anyway and then go to jail or prison?
Since it is the girl's choice, would it be better that she run away to a far off land?
Are those the choices?
Here (and in cases with similar circumstances) the parent is faced with the difficult choice of whether to defy a court order by not making the child available for treatment. Such defiance could carry legal consequences.
This sounds like victim blaming.
In reality, it's not a choice, but a harsh acceptance of reality that people can step in at any time, regardless of their statements being for religious freedom, and take that freedom away. JW's have known this for decades over a bunch of different things.
The court is not telling them in any way to renounce their loyalties to Jehovah. They are perfectly content with them being JW's [for now]. So neither the parents nor the girl have broken God laws in the slightest. The government has which is irrelevant since they don't care about it anyway.
The parents defied it as much as they could by taking it to the top court and they lost.
Of course, they can try to take it one step further and try for an escape but that seems rather extreme for a ruling that 1. Doesn't affect their spirituality or 2. Doesn't land them in jail.
That sounds like a JW must disobey secular law as long as they are physically able in order to resist breaking God's laws.
You may not have looked up the scriptures in your link.
Suffice to say, JW's are well aware of the lines they can and can't cross and rarely do they ever openly rebel against the government as an organization unless it involves compromising their belief. A forced blood transfusion does not do this. Individuals can & will do as they wish without organization approval and face the normal repercussions of it.